| 1 |
On 12/30/17 9:13 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/30/17 9:08 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 12/30/2017 07:22 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> use_if_iuse !nopie && return 0 |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Does this work? The "use" function supports negation (undocumented, but |
| 7 |
>> it's in the PMS), but I don't think use_if_iuse does. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Okay I'll read the code and test. You're right that I just assumed it |
| 11 |
> worked liked "use" wrt negation so the semantics need to be checked. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Thanks for looking this over carefully. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It looks like it would not work as expected because eutils.eclass has |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
in_iuse() { |
| 19 |
debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "${@}" |
| 20 |
[[ ${#} -eq 1 ]] || die "Invalid args to ${FUNCNAME}()" |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
local flag=${1} |
| 23 |
local liuse=( ${IUSE} ) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
has "${flag}" "${liuse[@]#[+-]}" |
| 26 |
} |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
use_if_iuse() { |
| 29 |
in_iuse $1 || return 1 |
| 30 |
use $1 |
| 31 |
} |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So $1 in use_if_iuse binds to "!nopie" and then in in_iuse again to |
| 34 |
"!nopie" which then messes up the has line, looking for a flag named |
| 35 |
"!nopie" in IUSE which will always be true. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I'll change that line to |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
use_if_iuse nopie || return 0 |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Grepping the tree, I see only instances of |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
if ! use_if_iuse X ... |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
which is good. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 50 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 51 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 52 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 53 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives